"... [the 16th Amendment] conferred no new power of taxation... [and]... prohibited the ... power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..."
by:
Source:
Stanton v. Baltic Mining (1916) 
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
This same quote is used in Aaron Russo's movie, "America: Freedom to Fascism" which is an informative look at the tax system from its inception to present day. Also the movie "Zeitgeist" takes a look at the tax system. Both are very thought provoking and both are available online. Some good reading on the subject is "The Creature From Jekyll Island"
 -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    In the Light of Truth,deception fails! Real Eyes Realize Real Lies.
     -- Kevin Shearer, NY. State     
  •  
    Very chopped up quote. The 16th violated the 10th against expanding federal powers beyond the taxation applied by congress on foreigns goods and services to include the income of domestics,. They might make it enforcable on protectorates not United States. But is that legal, should a patriation time limit be applied to that? I'd like more context on that quote.
     -- G■l■k Zolt■n Leenderdt Franco Buday, Vancouver, GVRD(Paine Cnty), Coastal Lwr Mainland BC(State of Neo Sumer), U.S. of Eh!     
  •  
    Among other things, I've used this site in jurisdictional issues with mixed results. Current courts support liberal / conservative, socialist / fascist, and Democrat / Republican social engineering policy, that is in the vast majority of cases, adverse to law.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    oops, I also meant to say: 5 stars for accuracy, thumbs down for application (its not)
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    ?
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    Huh? The Supreme Court cannot make statements or be quoted. It is like quoting the President of the United States without saying which President. Do we have a Justice to attach to this quote. And if we do I would assume that he had a minority view on what ever case was being considered. My copy of the Constitution says this: Amendment XVI "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and wihtout regard to any census or enumeration." It is interesting to me to get the Canadian input on our Constitution or forgive y'all may be Americans living abroad. Otherwise I assume that your own constitution, history and public issues are just to boring to be involved with. Someone once told me that living in Canada is liking living trapped in an attic of a large house where there is always a party going on down stairs and you are never allowed to attend. Zoltan I don't believe that an Amendment can violate a prior amendment. Otherwise all amendments after the X which gave the Feds more power or in which the "nation" regulated the "states" as in slavery, voting rights, etcetera would be invalid. Your interpretation of the X would stop the Amendment process in its tracts and therefore the X would in effect be invalid or against the Constituion which specifically calls for an amendment process.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    warren, direct tax means that the taxing authority has direct access to and/or, a relationship, one on one with an individual - his being, his actions and his property for taxing purposes. Indirect tax means that the subject taxing authority (the federal government) had/has no direct access to and/or, can not have a relationship with an individual one on one - his being, his actions nor his property for taxing purposes. The individual is to be secure in his person, houses, papers, and effects (has been redefined in favor of the despot collective) The original definition of income at the time of the Constitution's implementation was that of a type and shadow of a corporate excise. The original understanding was that according to the State related populous, by way of a corporate excise (according to census), the federal government could assess the State (as a whole) accordingly. The 16th Amendment was passed on the propaganda that income would only mean that the federal government's only direct access would be to the State's corporate excise. It could access the State's entities individually without having to depend on the State's self assessment. (by lawful understanding, the individual sovereign was not to be part of the accounting / administrative change - no new powers were given) As a side note* Corporations and related endeavors were created after the manner of business style trusts, creating an ultimate bifurcation of title. In a trust, the beneficiaries held equitable title (authority over the trust's substance) and the trustee held legal title (control over the business of the trust's assets - sell, hold, administer, payout to beneficiaries, etc.) With a corporation, the state holds equitable title and the share holders own legal title. As the ultimate title owner of tangibles and intangibles, the State sets all the rules for possession and administration. Further, if an individual exchanged his labors for a contracted value, that was not considered income, it was an equal exchange. If an individual contracted for $10 an hour and then subcontracted it out for $8 an hour, the extra $2 an hour was later considered a corporate excise. The de facto government, with it's tyrannical new definitions intact, no longer recognizing Alodium (even in sovereign being) commits larceny on whom ever, what ever, and when ever it wants per direct tax.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    brilliant - i refer 2 mike's concise, yet masterful treatment of subject. i believe the quote was by/from Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing 4 the majority.
     -- david young, cdm     
  •  
    Mike and Warren I responded to your questions in the previous days quotes. Please read my answers to your questions there. The short answer is that Income tax accounts for about 60% of the cash flow to Uncle Sam 50 personal and 10 corporate. SS accounts for 33 percent. Mike your question about IRS Budget is that it is around 11 billion and the IRS brings in around 2.5 to 3 trillion.
     -- Waffler, Smith, Arkansas     
  •  
    Wrong. waffler
     -- warren, olathe     
  •  
    It may be true, but if you can't get a lawyer to touch it, then it is irrelevant.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    "100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government." -- Grace Commission Report, submitted to President Ronald Reagan on January 15, 1984
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    how does this quote apply to us, ie. relative to the state's taxing power over its citizens?
     -- david young, cdm, ca     
  •  
    Exactly right Archer. Personal Income Tax represents "profits" to elitist bankers on loans made out of thin air...it's a criminal act by the bankers and a treasonous act by Congress.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: To pay taxes with credit!
    The Fed said their system "works (us) only with credit." With these words, they admitted that no one pays any taxes though millions PLAY taxes.
    They cannot get money from us in a system that
    works us only with credit and they have no need for money when all of us are risking our lives for weightless credit that God forbids. De.25:13-15
    Quit pretending to pay and get prosecuted! Tax offenses are more serious than manslaughter. To wit: A cop speeding at 126 MPH and texting killed 2 teen aged sisters. He got probation. A man prosecuted for state income tax had forgery and perjury used by the state and was convicted but won a new trial on appeal not based on the facts stated here. He put the forger, perjurer on his list of witnesses and was offered a plea bargain with no jail time and he refused. The judge told him he was facing 20 years and he stared at the judge. Case was dismissed, they never wanted their forger, perjurer to testify. WHY must they deny justice in so called tax offenses when it is impossible to pay taxes with paper or credit? In 1920, ecomomist, John M. Keynes wrote: "If governments should refrain from regulation (in the guise of taxation) the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the fraud upon the public can be concealed no longer." Cut and paste this to warn others.
     -- Ben Arnold, Indianapolis     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2019 Liberty-Tree.ca